Taylor v. Massapequa Intern. Little League

• Decision Date: 03 May 1999
• Citation: 689 N.Y.S.2d 523,261 AD2d 396
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 3943 James TAYLOR, etc., respondent, v. MASSAPEQUA INTERNATIONAL LITTLE LEAGUE, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 523

689 N.Y.S.2d 523

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 3943

James TAYLOR, etc., respondent, v.MASSAPEQUA INTERNATIONAL LITTLE LEAGUE, et al., appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 3, 1999.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Frederick B. Simpson and Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for appellants.

Stephen E. Pearlman, Flushing, N.Y. (Ruth S. Appadoo of counsel), for respondent.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN and NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Davis, J.), dated August 6, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 1995, the infant plaintiff(hereinafter the plaintiff), then 10 years old, played in a baseball league operated by the defendants.It was his first year in the so-called "minor-league" level, after two years at the "farm" level.At a game played on May 31, 1995, the plaintiff's coach allegedly instructed the team for the first time that they had to slide into the bases or else they would be automatically "out".However, the plaintiff alleged that he had never previously slid into a base and nobody, including his coach, had ever taught him the proper way to slide.The plaintiff alleged that, during the game, as he slid into third base at his coach's direction, he injured his left knee.Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages arising from personal injuries.He alleged, inter alia, that the defendants were negligent in "failing to provide adequate training and/or coaching for the activities required during baseball games".After issue was joined and discovery completed, the defendants' moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of the injuries alleged.The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding questions of fact.

In general, the doctrine of assumption of the risk provides that "by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation"(Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 484, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421, 685 N.E.2d 202;see also, Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 658, 543 N.Y.S.2d 29, 541 N.E.2d 29).Thus, a defendant may be relieved from liability for injuries to a participant arising from such risks "when a consenting participant is aware of the risks; has an...